MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1530482069

Improving observation-based modeling of other agents using tentative stereotyping and compactification through kd-tree structuring

2006· article· en· W1530482069 on OpenAlexaff
Jörg Denzinger, Jasmine Hamdan

Bibliographic record

VenueWeb Intelligence and Agent Systems An International Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning and Data Classification
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompactification (mathematics)k-nearest neighbors algorithmStereotype (UML)StructuringComputer scienceNearest neighbor searchAlgorithmMathematicsPattern recognition (psychology)Artificial intelligencePure mathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose two improvements to modeling other agents based on Observed Situation-Action Pairs and the Nearest Neighbor Rule --reevaluative stereotyping with switching and compactification of observations through kd-tree structuring and the Pseudo-Approximate Nearest Neighbor search. On the one hand, tentative stereotype models allow for good predictions of a modeled agent's behavior even after few observations. Periodic reevaluations of the chosen stereotype and of the stereotyping process itself, in addition to the potential for switching between different stereotypes or to the observation based model aids in dealing with very similar but not identical stereotypes and agents that do not conform to any stereotype. On the other hand, reducing comparisons for the Nearest Neighbor Rule by observation compactification keeps the application of the model efficient even after many observations have been made. Our experiments show that tentative stereotyping significantly improves cases in which the original method performs badly and that reevaluations and switching fortify stereotyping against the potential risk of using an incorrect stereotype. For compactification, our experiments show that using the kd-tree for compactifying observations and the Pseudo-Approximate Nearest Neighbor search for retrieving a Nearest Neighbor improves modeling efficiency when observations are abundant, but is sometimes coupled with a loss of accuracy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.104
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWeb Intelligence and Agent Systems An International JournalSame topicMachine Learning and Data ClassificationFrench-language works237,207